Howie Carr, who hosts a conservative talk show popular in New England and writes a column for the Boston Herald, says he wishes Brown hadn't embraced the pact.

"I think it would have been better if Scott hadn't agreed to it, the way things worked out with the Indian stuff," Carr said. "It would have been nice to have some people come in and bang her over the head with the falseness of her claims to be an Indian."

I like it when these people come out and ADMIT that they want to run a campaign that has nothing to do with the issues.

FTFA: Howie Carr, who hosts a conservative talk show popular in New England and writes a column for the Boston Herald, says he wishes Brown hadn't embraced the pact.

"I think it would have been better if Scott hadn't agreed to it, the way things worked out with the Indian stuff," Carr said. "It would have been nice to have some people come in and bang her over the head with the falseness of her claims to be an Indian."

What a shame. Poor Scott Brown's gonna have to run on the issues instead of letting the Koch Brothers flood the airwaves with petty, irrelevant bullshiat.

FTA, he wasn't doing it as a good deed. He thought he would benefit from it: Brown was the driving force behind the agreement, dubbed the "People's Pledge." After weathering a negative special election campaign against Martha Coakley in 2010 and then facing attacks from the League of Conservation Voters and the League of Women Voters in his race against Warren in 2011, Brown lobbied hard for the arrangement.

The ban also prevents the party committees (the Republican and Democratic National Committees and the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for example) from making independent expenditures in the race.

Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

what_now:The ban also prevents the party committees (the Republican and Democratic National Committees and the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for example) from making independent expenditures in the race.

Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Deneb81:How do you do that anyway? The two candidates agree to discourage anyone else from exercising their free speech?

I hate PACs as much as anyone, and think the candidate PACs are ridiculous, but it seems like an unenforceable and anti-democratic agreement.

TFA explains it: As soon as a PAC runs an add for a candidate, the candidate must then spend an equal amount of money on a charity of the OTHER candidate's choosing. So yeah, you can still run the ad. But no one in the world believes that your candidate wasn't aware of the ad before hand (Thanks Stephen Colbert), so it not only makes him look bad, it costs him money.

The first time this happened, Warren had a poll to see what charity Scott Brown should donate to. The overwhelming winner was Planned Parenthood, but she went with autism.

Deneb81:How do you do that anyway? The two candidates agree to discourage anyone else from exercising their free speech?

I hate PACs as much as anyone, and think the candidate PACs are ridiculous, but it seems like an unenforceable and anti-democratic agreement.

I don't know exactly how it works, but it might be that whenever an outside group runs an ad, the candidate has to fork over money to a charity. If the outside group really wants to support their candidate, then they wouldn't want them forking over campaign money.

Now, I don't see why they wouldn't run ads "in favor" of their opponent so that they would have to lose campaign funds.

bdub77:Scott Brown is not a total douchebag, he's a moderate conservative, a rare bird in Washington.

Having said that, I hope he loses, the fewer GOP members we have in the Senate, the better. And Elizabeth Warren is awesome so I'd much prefer to see her in Washington than Brown.

I would also prefer Elizabeth Warren in the Senate over Scott Brown. She seems to be very much in the vein of Russ Feingold who is probably my ideal candidate. That said, I would also prefer Scott Brown have a seat in the Senate over most of the dumbass jagoffs on the right like Jim DeMint and Mike Lee.

/fun fact: Jim DeMint once praised Romneycare and sent a letter to Bush asking him to implement it across the nation

jigger:Serious Black: jigger: what_now: I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Their votes also affect people in Afghanistan. Should Afghanistan citizens be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

You bet your ass.

Awesome. I'm sure Hamid Karzai will be thrilled to know you're okay with him buying political ads for elections he can't vote in.

what_now:Deneb81: How do you do that anyway? The two candidates agree to discourage anyone else from exercising their free speech?

I hate PACs as much as anyone, and think the candidate PACs are ridiculous, but it seems like an unenforceable and anti-democratic agreement.

TFA explains it: As soon as a PAC runs an add for a candidate, the candidate must then spend an equal amount of money on a charity of the OTHER candidate's choosing. So yeah, you can still run the ad. But no one in the world believes that your candidate wasn't aware of the ad before hand (Thanks Stephen Colbert), so it not only makes him look bad, it costs him money.

The first time this happened, Warren had a poll to see what charity Scott Brown should donate to. The overwhelming winner was Planned Parenthood, but she went with autism.

So, if I was a pro-Brown PAC could I buy ad time for ads that were tepid lukewarm support ads for Warren, you know just CV type stuff or "highlighting" Obama's choice for her to head the Consumer thing, and then force her to spend her campaign funds on these charities?

I mean, could you be a PAC for Brown and just disguise yourself as a really bad and poorly run pro-Warren PAC in order to force her to empty her coffers?

jigger:Serious Black: jigger: what_now: I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Their votes also affect people in Afghanistan. Should Afghanistan citizens be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

You bet your ass.

Oh, I missed the follow-up question. Should Kansas residents be able to vote for Massachusetts Senate candidates? What about Afghanistan citizens?

Frankly, binding or not, I'm (happily) surprised this has worked as well as it has. When I first heard about it I assumed that some outside group would run an ad against their candidate's opponent, then make a donation to their candidate's campaign fund equal to the amount needed to cover the penalty. I figured the extra cost would have the effect of limiting, somewhat, the number of ads outside groups would run, but wouldn't seriously curtail them. Sometimes, it's nice to be wrong.

what_now:Howie Carr, who hosts a conservative talk show popular in New England and writes a column for the Boston Herald, says he wishes Brown hadn't embraced the pact.

"I think it would have been better if Scott hadn't agreed to it, the way things worked out with the Indian stuff," Carr said. "It would have been nice to have some people come in and bang her over the head with the falseness of her claims to be an Indian."

I like it when these people come out and ADMIT that they want to run a campaign that has nothing to do with the issues.

Howie is out local Rush lite dolt. He and the Herald and the GOP bubble have been HAMMERING Warren over the head with this and the "professor" "slur" for months, with no traction. People here don't care. So, obviously it's that they haven't done it enough. Yup, as always they're very, very much out of touch with the average voter in the Commonwealth, and their insistence on running the GOP here like it were Mississippi is the number one reason why GOP registration is down to only ~11%.

Brown is toast come November, simply because of numbers.

In 2008 John F'in Kerry got 650,000 more votes than Brown did in the special election of 2010. Show me where even half those 650K votes for JK are going to switch to SB? There's not going to be 650K votes for SB to equalize it.

All those lockstep votes look rather dumb now Scotty, don't they? The citizens of the commonwealth elected you to Washington to be a Massachusetts conservative; not toe the party line. Now you can go back to modeling and housework.

SixPaperJoint:So, if I was a pro-Brown PAC could I buy ad time for ads that were tepid lukewarm support ads for Warren, you know just CV type stuff or "highlighting" Obama's choice for her to head the Consumer thing, and then force her to spend her campaign funds on these charities?

I mean, could you be a PAC for Brown and just disguise yourself as a really bad and poorly run pro-Warren PAC in order to force her to empty her coffers?

You could try, but when it's discovered that your PAC members are all registered Republicans, it will come back on Scott Brown even harder.

Serious Black:jigger: Serious Black: jigger: what_now: I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Their votes also affect people in Afghanistan. Should Afghanistan citizens be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

You bet your ass.

Awesome. I'm sure Hamid Karzai will be thrilled to know you're okay with him buying political ads for elections he can't vote in.

Are you not ok with the First Amendment?

Barricaded Gunman:jigger: Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Doesn't Kansas have their own senate races anymore?

If you like, you can buy an ad in a Kansas market to convey your opinion on the matter.

Serious Black:Oh, I missed the follow-up question. Should Kansas residents be able to vote for Massachusetts Senate candidates? What about Afghanistan citizens?

Serious Black:jigger: Serious Black: jigger: what_now: I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Their votes also affect people in Afghanistan. Should Afghanistan citizens be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

You bet your ass.

Awesome. I'm sure Hamid Karzai will be thrilled to know you're okay with him buying political ads for elections he can't vote in.

Well, then it's a great thing Citizens United paved the way to making that possible.

TyrantII:Yup, as always they're very, very much out of touch with the average voter in the Commonwealth, and their insistence on running the GOP here like it were Mississippi is the number one reason why GOP registration is down to only ~11%.

I volunteered at my local polling place for the MA Primary.

At the time, Romney hadn't secured the nomination, and there was NOTHING else on the ballot- no initiatives, no other candidates etc.

Obama got twice as many votes as all the GOP candidates combined.

Which means, twice as many people got up, walked down to the firehouse, and voted for Obama, even though he was already the candidate.

what_now:Deneb81: How do you do that anyway? The two candidates agree to discourage anyone else from exercising their free speech?

I hate PACs as much as anyone, and think the candidate PACs are ridiculous, but it seems like an unenforceable and anti-democratic agreement.

TFA explains it: As soon as a PAC runs an add for a candidate, the candidate must then spend an equal amount of money on a charity of the OTHER candidate's choosing. So yeah, you can still run the ad. But no one in the world believes that your candidate wasn't aware of the ad before hand (Thanks Stephen Colbert), so it not only makes him look bad, it costs him money.

The first time this happened, Warren had a poll to see what charity Scott Brown should donate to. The overwhelming winner was Planned Parenthood, but she went with autism.

So the Koch brothers could super-PAC spend a billion dollars with a pro-Warren, but weak sauce ad campaign like "Elizabeth Warren, an OK Professor from Harvard", and the SHE would have to donate a billion to charity?

jigger:Serious Black: Oh, I missed the follow-up question. Should Kansas residents be able to vote for Massachusetts Senate candidates? What about Afghanistan citizens?

What don't you understand about free speech? Where's the disconnect?

Voting itself is an act of free speech. In a 1st Circuilt concurring opinion on Miller v. Town of Hull, Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated "Voting has an expressive component in and of itself." Beyond that, the Nevada Supreme Court has recently ruled that voting contains "a communicative element" and is itself an important component of all political speech. If you prevent Kansas residents like myself from voting for Massachusetts Senate candidates, you are denying me my right to free speech. Why are YOU not okay with the First Amendment?

keylock71:what_now: keylock71: He knows he's got a fight on his hands and is trying to kiss up to Independents in MA (the majority of the Commonwealth are unenrolled voters).

I just want to make sure everyone else is aware: We're independents because the Democrats are too right wing for us, not because there is any chance in hell we'd vote for a Republican.

I can't speak for any other MAsshole besides myself, but I'm unenrolled, and it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Republican after their behavior over the last 4+ years.

Warren's the first candidate we've had in a while whom I'm actually voting for. Usually, I just vote against the biggest jackass...

I wrote in Mayor Menino for Senate in 2010 as a protest vote (joke) against that horrible woman Coakley. So Scott Browns 2 year stint is somewhat owed to me not being able to pull the lever for someone who was a local party crony and would have been dirty as all hell. Hopefully the party learned it's lesson about forcing a patronage candidate on the electorate.

Warren both in integrity and ability to conduct a campaign has been night and day compared to that lemon in 2010.

Tamater:Well, then it's a great thing Citizens United paved the way to making that possible.

An individual could have done it before Citizens United anyway.

Serious Black:Voting itself is an act of free speech. In a 1st Circuilt concurring opinion on Miller v. Town of Hull, Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated "Voting has an expressive component in and of itself." Beyond that, the Nevada Supreme Court has recently ruled that voting contains "a communicative element" and is itself an important component of all political speech. If you prevent Kansas residents like myself from voting for Massachusetts Senate candidates, you are denying me my right to free speech. Why are YOU not okay with the First Amendment?